• Do you need help identifying a 🌶?
    Is your plant suffering from an unknown issue? 🤧
    Then ask in Identification and Diagnosis.

What is a True - Naga / Bhut / Bih ?

Actually, just looked it up. In Alabama and TN and a bunch of other states, it is completely ok to marry your first cousin. Good thing I am from Mich where it is illegal to marry them.
 
i read in one article that bih bhut naga etc are the same...extract from the web site
http://www.frontalagritech.co.in/products/bihjolokia_gen.htm

"Bih jolokia, botanically known as Capsicum chinense Jacq. is extensively cultivated in Northbih jolokia in fruiting stage Eastern Region of India especially in the states of Assam, Nagaland and Manipur. It is also known by other names like Bhut jolokia, Borbih jolokia, Naga jolokia, Nagahari, Naga Morich, Raja mirchi etc."

i am confused as well.
 
They are so similar(just slightly different variations) that they are often considered the same. Not everyone has the info or dedication that we have here at THP;)
 
POTAWIE said:
Inbreeding works well with plants but not so well in the animal kingdom;)

Actually inbreeding in dogs does have some advantages, such as it somehow cancels out genetic defects in a certain line and it is also how alot of the "rare" colors of dogs come about like red Boston Terriers that are typically brindle or black.
 
This is actually a really good subject with some great points being put across..

I have grown all 3 "naga' varieties mentioned and I must say that I just like to eat them and don't really get into the technical side of the 'breeding' But that's not to say It's not an interesting topic :)
 
POTAWIE said:
I don't really know how different all the varieties are, but they all appear to be chinense with some frutescens. Without complete DNA comparisons I think it would be impossible to say for sure if some were "crossed back and forth and than some" or if they just adapted, or spontaneously mutated, or just show signs of selective breeding.
You don't need to get a DNA test to know that, now do you? you already said the ones they tested (they haven't tested them all) showed both Chinense and Frutescens genes. how did that happen without crossing?
 
rds040800 said:
Actually inbreeding in dogs does have some advantages, such as it somehow cancels out genetic defects in a certain line and it is also how alot of the "rare" colors of dogs come about like red Boston Terriers that are typically brindle or black.
That's why breeding messes with the genetic code. if it didn't, it wouldn't have had any of its effects.

If chiles grow differently with different pods and grow pattern, they're not the same.
 
Silver_Surfer said:
Didn't you mean to say Tennessee. :lol:
I always thought it was anywhere in Appalachia :)
 
Potawie,A.J,Omri god another time this question has been asked.
DATABASE OR STICKY NEEDED :lol:.
History Dorset Naga hit the headlines first when that o so lovely farm in dorset showed them to the world and the seeds and pods where given them from a Bangladeshi gentleman who owned a number of curry houses.He called the plant a Naga and had been culivated in the u.k for at least ten years,Seeds where to sent to that famous University in n/m and requests where made for suppliers in India And bangladesh and many variants came in the first being local types called Bhut Jolokia and Naga Morich.
So three types where established..Bhut,Dorset,Morich and where tested in germany for taste size,Growth etc and the conclusion was that they where very alike and the dorset been slightly smaller than the other to..The natural conclusion being that the had slightly changed as they where grown in differnt regions,Areas and contitons.
Frontal agritech came on the seen to supply original sourced varietys the first being the Bih(Noted by its pimpled apperance)
then other..cough..cultivations that are not very good ie choc Bhutt,Khorika etc.
Today there lots of variants,Cultivars and hybrids But or Bhutt
:lol: the orignal three are still there and loved by all and damn they all taste great..Will not say which i think is the hottest because its personal and might start a ravanous debate.
As plants are grown in differnt parts of the world.Overtime and
of course enviromental conditions help as well as if the plants are open pollinted changes occure and look at the 7pot,grown by
people from Bangladesh who loved there Naga so much they took it with them to Trinidad and years of cultivation produced a great variety..Or was the strain bought from banglaseh or india differnt and hasnt been discoverd yet..Possabilitys are endless
and that`s what make chili growing fun.;)
 
talas said:
So three types where established..Bhut,Dorset,Morich

The Dorest Naga is a Naga Morich that's what they grew from, after a chat with my other half about it last night what I said yesterday is apparently broadly correct BUT it's impossible to say how much genuine change could occur over such a short period without more detailed information on how they bred them.

From http://www.dorsetnaga.com/ they explain (kind of) what they did and refer to Dorset Naga in 2002 the same year they first started growing the Naga Morich!

It seems the new name continued the Indian theme of including the chillies location in the nomenclature.

I haven't grown or tasted any of these super hots so I can't say first hand how much difference there is but I would strongly suspect the Dorset Naga is more of a branded Naga Morich than a distinct variety.

...That said they've been selecting for 7 years now and I don't know if that's long enough for genuine changes to show. Where's a botanist when you need one?
 
AlabamaJack said:
Is that something like being from Arkansas in the USA? :lol:

I come from the Isle of Harris in a pretty remote part of Scotland, there's less than 2000 people in total...
In the UK it's usually an area called The Fens or just Norfolk that gets the webbed finger jokes, my gf is from Norfolk...:shocked:
 
Omri said:
You don't need to get a DNA test to know that, now do you? you already said the ones they tested (they haven't tested them all) showed both Chinense and Frutescens genes. how did that happen without crossing?

If they all showed chinense and frutescens then I'd think that would make them more the same than different. Of course they were crossed, almost all peppers were crossed somewhere, but these have been stabilized over many years.
I still say they are all different variations of the same pepper
 
POTAWIE said:
If they all showed chinense and frutescens then I'd think that would make them more the same than different. Of course they were crossed, almost all peppers were crossed somewhere, but these have been stabilized over many years
Just saying they're in differet areas, open polinated, grown with different chiles near by and show different qualities. all those support the fact they're not the same chile. not saying they're not close relatives or even that at some point they were the same chile, you can't really know that. all I'm saying is it's ridiculous to think that after so much time, it's possible for all to be the same. they're similar no doubt, but not the same.

BTW you can't possibly know if they all share the Frutescens genes, as not all were tested.
 
POTAWIE said:
I still say they are all different variations of the same pepper

Most of the chiles we grow are variations of only five species. Where do we draw the line between one cultivar and the next? How different do they have to be to deserve/require it's own name? I don't know.
 
Omri said:
Just saying they're in differet areas, open polinated, grown with different chiles near by and show different qualities. all those support the fact they're not the same chile. not saying they're not close relatives or even that at some point they were the same chile, you can't really know that. all I'm saying is it's ridiculous to think that after so much time, it's possible for all to be the same. they're similar no doubt, but not the same.

BTW you can't possibly know if they all share the Frutescens genes, as not all were tested.

That's why I said if and why I said a DNA test would be needed to really prove anything
I know of many tomato varieties that are grown in different parts of the world and they are still considered the same variety even though they've adapted to different climates and growing conditions. Why is it different with chiles?
 
MrArboc said:
Most of the chiles we grow are variations of only five species. Where do we draw the line between one cultivar and the next? How different do they have to be to deserve/require it's own name? I don't know.
Usually new genes have to be introduced to be considered a new variety
 
Well the Dorset naga is not really condidered a new variety because it was only selectively bred, and was not crossed to introduce new genes. Otherwise everyone of us who saves seeds would have our own new variety. As for the bhut/naga/bih, maybe new genes were introduced making them different, but as far as I know this is all speculation and proper testing would be needed for proof
 
Breeding does change the genetic code, and you don't need to introduce new genes to get a whole new chile. that's how we got the different species in the first place.
 
Back
Top